Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 01/07/2016 in all areas

  1. 9 points
    AI fleets. Why are people expecting to be able to "solo AI fleets"? If I am solo (as I often am) I look for targets I know I can handle on my own. What is wrong with that? Once you get comfortable AI fleets become an issue. That is why their removal is being called for by so many people. Imaging the World Cup. A beautiful balanced game is being played. Now imagine each player on the field has 2 dogs helping him. Players are tripping over dogs, dogs are chasing the ball around etc. It's still a soccer game, but the dynamic has changed and everything is messed up. That's what AI fleets are doing to open sea Pvp, and that's why so many hate them. I don't care if trader ships hire escorts, but warships on the open sea should not have AI hires.
  2. 8 points
    The only solution that I can see to make skill matter more without disfiguring current combat mechanics is to simply create more 1v1 opportunities rather than awkward attempts to make 1v3 winnable. Reducing battle entry timers in OW would help. A lobby system where you can see what you are up against would help. I do not believe in the premise that 1v3 odds should be made winnable as there has to be at least an option for players to protect themselves from dedicated lone wolfs by sailing in convoys.. much like in reality.
  3. 6 points
    As Early Access (allegedly) approaches, there is one mechanic that I feel, as a pirate, is imperative to implement before much larger numbers of new players (hopefully) flood the game; the concept of "turning" pirate rather than choosing to start out as a pirate. The game of ArcheAge already has this mechanic: players start as one of the 2 default factions, which are also at war with each other. If they commit enough crimes they have the ability to "turn" pirate, effectively joining a 3rd faction. Doing so removes them from their current guild, and lose the protection of any of their previous faction's guards, among other things. Going pirate in ArcheAge is no small matter, so many wait until they are the highest level to do so. I suggest that Naval Action implement a similar mechanic for pirates. Players should first start out as any of the default nations, and if they attack a "friendly" vessel, they turn pirate. (I think this should also be tweaked. I believe someone should only be made to go pirate if their are survivors to tell the story of said treason and piracy). Turning to and playing pirate should be a sobering smack in the face of the player; Cut ties with anyone and everyone, lose access to ports and trade you once claimed. Have a ship in a port you can't access anymore because you went pirate? Tough. It shouldn't be a simple decision, just as it was in history. And just like in history, I also think that "accidental" piracy should be observed. You didn't mean to attack a vessel; you thought it was an enemy? Good luck telling that to the Lord High Admiral during your trial. I think this is imperative to implement something along these lines for EA due to the fact that the game will then be accessible to a larger population, many of which who may come in thinking they can play pirate with the same (relative) ease as any other Nation. They shouldn't. Doing this after EA may cause some dissent, so it would be better to implement this sooner rather than later. , in my opinion at least. EDIT: Being a noob that I am, I have only just added a poll option to this topic Fair winds and swift seas,
  4. 5 points
    Would be very nice if we can use the spyglass to know what town is closed by when we on free mode, no just in battle.
  5. 5 points
    The historical battles with one vs two and the one winning are very rare - especially if the ships are similarly fitted and sized. The biggest barrier to "making skill matter" I see is the demand on sinking to win ---- very unhistorical. ---- In reality if a single ship was skilled enough to batter one or even two enemies enough - one or both would surrender, sometimes quite quickly.
  6. 5 points
    I will also reiterate what others have said. I think if you are in a merchant ship, no matter what level you are, you should be able to hire other ships. So say if you are a Rear Admiral and you are in a Trader Snow, I think you should be able to hire 2 Snows.
  7. 4 points
    So you atacked him with a sole purpose of tagging him from max range in trincs while he couldnt do nothing. Than you failed in penetrating so he could exit... and now you made a Tribunal post. Sure why not.... If i found you in Open world im going to demast you and tag you fro whole timer.... let's see how you gonna like it...
  8. 4 points
    I am pretty sure with 3000 to 4000 people on the server 1v2 fights are going to pale in comparison to the 2v6s or bountiful amounts of other ganks that are going to be bound to happen on a daily basis in mass. Sounds like a bit of a defeatist way of trying to figure out how to help someone once they are already boned. What happens in a world where there are not many of these "unskilled captains" and the experienced gankers just use these new found equalizers to finish the job on our "one" in this 1v2, 2v6, etc... to finish the job even faster than before. If someone gets a weapon of mass destruction then everyone else does simultaneously.
  9. 3 points
    Tittle says it all Happy Orthodox Christmas
  10. 3 points
    Likely zero. At some point you're going to have to practice setting up a new server before you go live, for documentation purposes as well as disaster recovery procedures. If you work through that procedure, you end up with a server anyways - why not make it the PvE server. It's a win win. Either way, it flat out doesn't matter if any Development time was diverted to create the PvE server. It is a feature that has always been promised, and it was a feature that likely was on the road map for Early Access. The "you've wasted time setting up a PvE server" argument is a non-starter and is completely unimportant. Let's move on.
  11. 3 points
    -Allow them for Traders -Allow them on the PvE server -Allow them for brand new players who are still learning the basics.
  12. 3 points
    As stated above it messes up the balance of the game for everyone else. Both sides of this discussion are trying to protect the way they want to play, and it is up to the developers to decide which way they want to support. Does this game want to be an awesome pvp action game, or does it want to be an awesome fleet management pve game with regards to AI fleets? It really can't be both ways. One messes up the other unfortunately (unless it was only allowed on the PvE server of course).
  13. 3 points
    Lord protectors are already in. It can definitely be expanded.
  14. 3 points
    Admin clearly asked about how skill can matter more once the battle is already joined. The hypothetical situation was 1 v 3. Of course, maybe everyone is off topic because people don't have many viable ideas. I certainly don't. Probably the only answer would be to make the game really arcade (stamina bars powering WoW spells and heals) or really harsh and sim-level (requiring excellent planning and energy management to pull off well-timed broadsides while maneuvering hard) with RPG elements in the crew (huge rate of fire and morale disparities). The first two elements are obviously off the table. The third could only work in an essentially SP game with limited pop-in PvP like Dark Souls.
  15. 3 points
    the whole reason we have warships in the first place is to protect trade ships. the burden of protection should not fall on the trader, it is the navy's job. I say when we build up the economy part of the game, a mechanic should be put in place that makes it important for trade ships to do their business unmolested. not protecting traders should result in a slow economy for that nation. one way to have an incentive to protect NPC trade ships is to make missions that will pay gold and xp for escorting the NPC to a destination. to simplify an escort mission, you could make the escorted vessels fleet ships so all you need to do is sail to another port and the mission would be complete.
  16. 3 points
    The recent buff to the towers makes winning a shallow port battle with even a handful of defenders virtually impossible. Mercury's and Snow's simply can't stand up to the abuse the 42's put out while trying to bring them down with much lesser guns and also fighting with some defender ships. Way way too OP.
  17. 3 points
    It's really discouraging to consistently hear this. Treating Pirates like an empire-sustaining faction is just not consistent with history. And yet so much historical detail has gone into this game. Which is frustrating, because an inconsistency like this is like watching Saving Private Ryan, but at the end Matt Damon uses a lightsaber on the Germans at Ramelle. The best response I can give is from a thread I posted in a couple weeks ago: In real life, GB, USA, and France were able to limit Piracy because Piracy was decentralized and lacking concerted firepower relative to the Nationals. One can't make an historical argument ("well they suppressed piracy in real life, you can too") if Pirates ingame are afforded such non-historical luxuries as a centralized location with an unassailable defense fleet. Also, Pirates were inherently different than the U.S. Founding Fathers in terms of political goals. The analogy posited is false. Aspiring nations such as the United States sought independence under a common banner, with the hopes of creating either a centralized political structure, or, in the case of the U.S., a looser decentralized confederation. Any research on Pirates shows that Piracy was primarily motivated by short term, personally achievable goals such as profit, and freedom from debt collectors or the law. Nation-building is motivated by long-term, collective goals, that require independent actors to forego short term gain for a larger concept, for historical posterity and glory for future generations. As short-term actors, many Pirates quarreled with and possessed animosity towards certain other Pirates more than they had towards nations. Yes, a select few literate Pirates did write of dreams of a Pirate paradyse, a land under the black flag, but such musings are akin to disruptive teenagers of the current age dreaming of a utopia without laws and police. They were pipe dreams, not based on what was realistically feasible, in other words. And this was yet a minority: most Pirates saw no future beyond the well being of their purses and their ships. To treat Pirates as some sort of unified front that historically wanted to band together under a common flag and create a cohesive political empire that would span generations is, simply, wrong in the historical realm. I'm quite disappointed to hear that admin wants to treat them as such, as this game is so good at honoring history in other ways. This seems astonishingly inconsistent with history. In addition to the inconsistency with history, there are also gameplay reasons to want the Pirate experience to be different. It's more fun for everyone if piracy is the scourge of the entire Caribbean, not just the scourge of the area surrounding Mortimer town, or whatever territory they own. To accomplish this, there should be uncaptureable pirate havens spread around the map, and gameplay reasons to keep Pirates visiting each haven (perhaps their endgame RvR goal is to sink a certain amount of tonnage in each sector). It seems like a huge missed opportunity if a Pirate "empire" spreads around Mortimer Town (arbitrary location), and players of Spanish, French, Dutch factions who rarely leave the Lower Antilles almost never encounter a single Pirate.
  18. 3 points
    The real solution is to join the pirates, rise up through the ranks, start your own group, dominate one or more ports, calling them yours and saying that other pirates are not welcome there. Then go to war with all other pirates.
  19. 3 points
    While I don't agree with the manner in which Myes! chose to express his opinion, the content of his statements have my hearty agreement. The game was really quite perfect a few months ago (right before V 1.5 I believe). Since then, the balancing has been a bit catastrophic. The Rebels appear to have been armed with some kind of bullet reflecting armour, and the Federal artillery has become the Earthly Manifestation of the Wrath of God. Federal artillery has been able to obliterate over 140 men in a single round of canister (which as Mr. Flair will attest is completely impossible), and I have watched Federal infantry on high ground, with 70% cover and superior numbers, decimated by completely exposed Confederates. Honestly, putting in US infantry feels like murder. What this results in is battles where I genuinely don't know if the Iron Brigade Culp's Hill can defeat Perry's Brigade on the ground, and where Federal artillery has comically over rated kills of over 1000 in a single battle. As a Union only player, I can still win, but seeing my men wiped out by impossible Confederate volleys, only to have those Rebels repeatedly checked by absurd artillery, has taken all of the fun out of a once great game. I really had hoped that the game would return to its former caliber, and that the mistakes of these patches would be ameliorated, Sadly, I was wrong, and at this point the Brother vs Brother Civil War mod is looking like a more accurate depiction of the war between the States then UGG. At this point, maybe it would be best to let players customize the damage output and inputs ourselves, so that those of us who want a more balanced and realistic experience can do so (although I would certainly prefer a return to UGG's older, sublime state).
  20. 3 points
    Under the impressions from the Danes' tactics today (they did succesfully sink our flagcarrying constitution by chain-ramming it multiple time in a row with several frigates): i greatly admire the inventive use of tactics in that fight (considering current game rules that was surely the right thing to do) but i find the current mechanics of this problematic. Ramming should be a legitimate tactic, but surely it should harm you more than the target ship you ram. I.e. if you want to sacrifice five frigates to ram-sink a constitution that's fine, but you probably shouldn't be able to ram it with five ships, force it to sink but keep all your ships perfectly afloat and ready to fight after 20 seconds of pumping.
  21. 3 points
    The following discusses realistic results, it does not necessarily make for good gameplay. One did not just "remount" a cannon, especially not in battle. You'd need to rig tackle to lift it. Very likely, there would need to be extensive repairs to the mount itself requiring the carpenter and hours of work. And as you said, this all assumes that the tube itself hasn't been damaged in some way. In game, we do need cannon to come back from the dead to some degree, but I too would like to see greater consequences of a successful rake. Right now, I still feel like I don't mind getting raked so much - and that's just wrong. So getting past the rake, let's ask ourselves this question: Historically, what happened when more than one inferior ship "caught" a bigger adversary? What were the tactics employed? Understanding the "correct" and common tactics of that era in facing a larger enemy with superior numbers might give us better insight into what can be done in game to bring about the answer to the question that Admin is asking.
  22. 3 points
    Not happy about the fleet changes at all. I think this was cool feature of the game....I don't understand why fleets couldn't be removed only for PVP, or better yet only allow AI to balance PVP fights. Currently, I am a solo player, and this is a huge kick in the balls. The game needs as much "stuff" as possible for people to stay interested...this is a step in the wrong direction. More and more I'm feeling like I will be forced into a guild to get the most out of the game....
  23. 2 points
    Since I am an obedient and well behaved kind of a guy... I'll start off by reinforcing what's been said by many elsewhere: Devastating rakes. It could be argued that even ridiculously well angled, aimed and timed rakes aren't devastating enough to enable 1 vs 2-3. Things have gotten better with the penalties of low crew. We discussed raking gun loss earlier, that sure would help. I've tried my best with gun loss, but I'm no programmer. I wouldn't know if you could slap a multiplier on balls coming from a given stern sector of a ship, nor if we want that? It could get gamey real fast. Crew loss penalties could be tweaked too. If your frigate has lost 100 guys and you stay in gunnery focus, maybe we could increase yard speed penalties? Rudder "shock". How would increased down time for damaged rudder work? Maybe make damaged rudder due to damage of the actual rudder "blade" take longer to fix than damage to the other parts? I can't tell if this is a good idea, tho.
  24. 2 points
    What's new: You can destroy your Yacht now if it is in the enemy port. Many people could not redeem the ship because the port with the yacht was captured. Now if it is stuck - destroy it and redeem a new one. Player cannot attack now when he has an invulnerability timer. It was allowing some surprise attacks after exiting ports. (invul and invis timers will be reworked after release) You no longer can attack players of the nation in the vicinity of their capital. The "protected by Capital" area is reduced 2x times. Due to popular demand fleets were disabled for advanced ranks. You can only use fleets during first 3 ranks. Max AI fleet ship level is cutter. If you feel this is wrong please be more vocal on the forums to protect features you love. Missions enemy strength somewhat decreased. You will still get some hard missions but less often. If you get a hard mission bring friends or cancel and take it in another port according to your rank. Reminder: Missions force you to upgrade your ship. If you are trying to to lieutenant missions in a yacht you will suffer. Fixed bugs: Bug with lack of durability loss when client crashed was fixed. It allowed people to keep durability if they alt f4ed in battle in several rare cases. Tunings: Carronades max possible operational distance increased to 500 meters from 250 Martello towers armor class increased Bot composition tuned (pavels can be only sailed by players) Max bot ship is 74-3rd rate Durability numbers changed - 1st rank 1, 2nd rank 2, 3rd rank 3. BR Rebalanced (lineships BR increased) to provide better balancing in events and misisons AI Accuracy bugs fixed Fort behaviour and shooting bugs fixed
  25. 2 points
    Age of Sail Assessment The primary reason I look forward to this game is realism. I run a gaming clan, and we're also looking forward to the realism. One of the things we discussed was that it'd be great to see a player with a first rate and have to flee. Or to lose everything because you didn't check your instruments and sailed into a storm. If you look at the most popular open-world multiplayer realism games in the PC gaming market, they are all incredibly challenging and require significant amounts of time and effort to progress in. Case studies Case one: DayZ. I spent six hours with my clan looting and gathering equipment. Then we ran out of food. Two died from starvation, and one shot the three remaining of us and took our food. This was neither a rewarding nor an enjoyable experience, but the fact that I could lose everything because my friend wanted my beans was incredibly attractive. The adrenaline in a firefight is real, and the reward of passing through a town unscathed is what makes people become addicted to the game. The game is almost entirely PvP oriented, as the only AI threat are the zombies (which are trivial at best). DayZ is one of Steam's biggest sellers. Lesson learnt from DayZ: The player needs to be able to lose everything. All of it. Trading in the Caribbean was a risky venture, and that should be reflected in the game. The goals must also be player defined, and there should be no artificial restrictions on people. If that guy wants to turn his expensive first rate into a fireball and sail it into a port (destroying a load of people's hard work in the process by sinking their ships and cargos) they should be able to. The risks should be real and the limitations not imposed by leveling systems and artificial scripts, but by actual mechanics. It’s something I call dynamic progression – the player can go back as well as forwards. Implementation: I can attack anyone at any time. Things that require licences can be bought and trafficked, and laws are enforced by players. I will concede an artificial guild for something like the British Empire, or France, but a human must run it and people must be able to politic their way to the top. There must be no non-economic or non-physical limitations on goods (eg, you must be at least rank admiral/level x to move these goods, or complete quest xyz, or unlock this). Perhaps allowing in-game users to invest in technological advances (updates) through gold or other capital would be useful. The game must have a fully functioning and responsive economy based around supply and demand. If my trading consortium is big enough, I should legitimately be able to manipulate the price of wood. Case two: ArmA II and III. Some of the most popular PC shooting games. The first thing the community did with ArmA? Make it more realistic. For ArmA II, there was the ACE and ACRE modpack. This added things like backblast, bullet & wind dynamics, overheating guns, blackouts, deafening. It also removed the ability to be shot and survive. Observe now ArmA III. AGM (advanced gameplay modification) and CSE (combat space environment) added bleeding out, along with wind ballistics and realistic body armour that made most guns a one-hit kill. Lesson learnt from ArmA: Gamers are sticklers for detail. We love things like dry rot in the masts or damp sails interfering with gameplay. Implementation: Fevers, dry rot, a need for appropriate paint jobs, other advanced mechanics. Users should have the opportunity to make daft mistakes or plan ahead and run risks. If I want to skimp on the waterproof wax because I reckon we’ll have good weather on the voyage, I should be allowed to make that choice and run that risk. To make it easier for new players, you could spend some money hiring a skipper or dockhand to make the decisions for you (AI). Case three: Skyrim. One word: Immersion. Mods like FrostFall and "Realistic Needs and Diseases" make that game a struggle to survive in, and are still some of the most popular mods. Being overpowered is boring. Aside from boobs and butt physics (yeah, Chesko, I'm looking at you), realism mods are the most popular. There is a reason for this. If everyone is a special magical warrior destined for greatness, then the greatness is significant. If there's one thing people love more than winning, it's winning when there’s a challenge. Lesson Learnt from Skyrim (modding community especially): Achieving an arbitrary rank that gives you nothing more than a new decal or skill is terribly dull after a while. Surviving against the odds to rise to the top, however, is great fun. Implementation: If my ship gets lost and my crew die or mutiny, it should be clear that I did something wrong and must try better next time. This will add an actual value to in-game skills such as inventory management, cartography and navigation. People love using their skills and learning new ones. Case four: Elder Scrolls Online. Behold! Open world game with guilds and vast player interaction, bringing every previous map from gaming's most iconic continent together in the series' most iconic era. This may be the most important case study for this game. On paper, this game looked like a godsend to Bethesda. It bombed. More people play with Skyrim RN&D or Frostfall than actually bought TESO. There's a very good reason for this, and that is there was mechanical rank progression (meaning that skill was less important than simply grinding your way to the top), a lack of unique leveling, and artificial guilds. Sure, you could be a mystical warrior travelling the world with heroic armour and battling giants with your friends, but receiving XP and arbitrary rewards (such as a special cloak or "unique" dagger) killed that game. The thing was, there was no risk. If you died, what did you lose? Nothing, you'd just have to endure a long and boring walk back to your friends whilst contemplating failure in your long and boring challenge to reach an arbitrary level. This means that the goals the game set were meaningless. Lesson learnt: Arbitrary levels kill games. Goals must depend on actual physical mechanics, not linear progression. If my friend is an admiral in a large navy, it makes sense he might fast-track me onto a first-rate. I shouldn’t have to wait until level 20. Quests must be player-set and goals player-defined. Implementation: Allow players to make the decision about investment, ranks, and progression within clans. I’d like to be able to buy ten tonnes of iron and pay a player’s cargo ship to take it from port in New Guinea to my factory in Jamaica. I’d also like this player to be able to decide to disappear with the goods. This mechanic shouldn’t be guided by quest markers, and the player shouldn’t be forced to sell it to the factory in Jamaica. The element of risk and trust, as well as possible retribution from other clans, should be enough. Case five: Mount and blade. The community there is self-sustaining. They buy servers, and in order to pay for the servers recruit individuals. It is not unknown for people to spend large amounts of money buying copies of the game in order to bring new recruits in. This is a fantastic business model. The reason it works is because the game has no artificial leveling systems. If a player wants to have a line of infantry to command in an event, the task is simple. He must recruit, train and provide for every single real human. There are no artificial structures, because everything is based around in-game and interpersonal skill. If we replace Mount & Blade regiments with ships or fleets, we will see the same patterns reflected. Clans will die, go bankrupt, overthrow their managers, and the in-game politics and feuding will be real. Lesson Learnt: You can’t simulate real-world interactions through scripts and user interfaces. So don’t try. Implementation: Provide a visual mechanic for clans, such as a unique flag. Allow clans to form strong identities by giving them powerful tools to do so. The Economy Economy concept: The majority of goods required in the game are mineable by players. Resources should be limited or difficult to obtain. EG, a list of resources for a cannon: Iron (for the cannon itself, and cannonballs) Wood (maybe oak or teak) Black Powder (made from sulphates, saltpeter, and charcoal) All of the ingredients named should be part of the wider economy. These resources should be mineable, and sold on wider stock exchanges. See the Runescape stock exchange for a proof of concept of functioning in-game economies. Supply and demand should and must be at the core of any game set in the golden age of free market capitalism. Say my cannon foundry in Cuba is running low on iron, I could increase the buying price of iron. Players will naturally go and find more iron to sell to me. This will be reflected in the cost of cannons. Further economy ideas Shipbuilding yards must also exist. These will take resources and produce ships over a given time. At first, these could be run by a moderator, but over time players may start to use them. Concept resource list: · Stone (maybe different varieties later on) · Glass (windows etc) · Metals (and their ores) · Cloth (and the raw materials behind it) · Woods (eg, teak, mahogany, oak, pine) · Foods (of various types) A chemical industry could prove valuable, especially since this would allow players to control the production of waxes, paints, gunpowder, and various other things. Investment in companies and consortiums through a virtual stock exchange might be a great way to earn profit and encourage divestment of funds. For complicated industries such as gunpowder factories or shipyards, the barriers of entry and costs will be high, but profits significant. Therefore, players may invest in someone’s shipbuilding enterprise by buying shares for certain values. This era was the birth of the modern stock market for a reason. Economies are useful because they encourage players to regularly play the game. They add immersion, dynamic progression, risks, rewards, and a goal for many players that will allow communities and consortiums to stick together. Of course, many players may not wish to risk everything to deliver that expensive cargo though pirate-infested seas. This is perfectly acceptable and understandable, and actually benefits the game. As the owner of a consortium, I can simply pay ten people to carry a cargo with their ships. They do their job, I do mine. I’m working on a more detailed concept as I find out more about the game and read into planned features. I’m also working on a concept for a community hub, if people are interested.
  26. 2 points
    Alright, let us just be honest, what is the point in having a fleet if all you can have in your fleet is cutters, and lynx. if everyone wants to complain about snow's being in pvp. Why don't we simply remove ALL AI controlled vessels in any pvp battle. but allow us to keep them in PVE battles. So lets bring them back in.
  27. 2 points
    Wait, i am being tribunal'd for leaving the battle when i can? My leave battle timer ran out and i left the battle. On the other hand. You were straight up griefing. A few minutes ago the pirates were trying to attack Puerto Del Padre. Several US frigates bravely attacked the pirate main fleet to delay the attack long enough for the US main fleet to arrive. The US frigates were sunk but held out long enough for the main fleet to arrive. When the main fleets were about to face off (atleast that's what it looked like) several of the US ships were tagged independently by smaller ships. While the whole "Split up the enemy fleet if possible" is a valid strategy. Griefing is not. Imo. it's fine if someone splits up the enemy fleet and actually fight in these battle that they start. But if they have no intention of fighting but instead just want to sit far away and pepper you with shots that do no damage but keeps you tagged then that is what i see as griefing. We sent our frigates in to actually fight the Pirate Flag Carrier, they all sank, but they managed to fight for long enough to let our main fleet arrive. I was in my Santi and was tagged by a Connie and a Trinc. At first i sat there with my sails furled since i really just wanted to get out and help the main fleet. They stayed far away and downwind so that they could use the heel to have even longer range. After five minutes i got tired of them sitting there so i figured, i'll set sail and go towards them. As i started to come closer they immediately ran further downwind so that they again were at max range where they were unable to do any damage. Screenshot of chat before i left the battle; Oh, i should probably also add that i exit'd the game in the "battle result screen" as our main fleet was scattered around in several different instances, all of which were closed at the time. Edit; On another note, you come here to the tribunal suddenly saying you had intentions of sinking me? Yet you stayed at max range where you do not do any damage. I call bullshit.
  28. 2 points
    Currently a brand new player logs in heads out to sea to knock some heads!! hmm can't find anyone.. oops I can't see land.. Help Channel: <Newb>: Help, is there anyway to see where I am? <ProBob>: No, use yer compass and learn to navigate <Newb>: wtf I have no clue where I am.. <ProBob>: Use your teleport or sail west until you hit land... The French Newb.. player sails for an hour never sees land or another soul, and because his teleport still has 2 hour cooldown, he ragequits... Just saying, new players log in and have to wait 4hrs for a teleport, why not change it so they can TP immediately.. (just in case they need it)
  29. 2 points
    I would also expand on this idea with removing the pirate capitol and making it possible for pirates to create conquest flags from Freetowns. This makes the pirate game play a little bit more asymmetrical because they can come and set up shop wherever they are and there will be no "safe" spot to farm at. I'd like to see nations start noticing pirates in their territory slowly bringing in more ships and have to combat piracy inside of their territory if it pops up.
  30. 2 points
    It always amuses me that whenever there is discussion or debate of any type of pirate organization, it is written off as "Fantasy/Disney" Pirates. These users are lauded and called Jack Sparrows, and summarily mocked for almost any type of stance that remotely promotes some sort of pirate mechanic that may be deemed useful. Don't get me wrong, these sort of characters do in fact exist; PotCO was not a game I got into, and with good reason. There are indeed characters who will see this game as one of the few age-of-sail games either in development or on the market and think "Oh look, a pirate game, Pirates need to rule the wave because pirates are awesome! We need a Black Pearl and a erroneous Queen Anne's Revenge that's a Man-o-War-Galleon-Super-Lineship, because Pirates!" Yes these characters do exist, however this has been the scapegoat for almost anyone advocating pirates and piracy on this forum and in game, especially during the early months when pirates had yet been implemented. Now to my point: Did pirates fight amongst each other? Yes. Did they also band together, in small groups, from time to time? Yes. Did pirates ever organize themselves to such an extent as to be considered a sizable threat and entity? Yes, and while there are admittedly only a handful of occurances, they happened and were similar enough in nature to prompt the idea that pirates being a "faction" and working together is not fart-fetched and is historically accurate. (NOTE: the idea of pirates as a faction, NOT as a carbon copy Nation). Example include: Madagascar Port Royal (Though this could be argued as a "privateer haven". However the port and its inhabitants were often described as "vagabonds," "miscreants," and "A collection of the most uncouth characters there ever was." Take that with what you will. "You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy." Nassau Tortuga Now, were pirates capable of working together in large numbers, even to form various pirate Republics. Yes. Did pirates want to create a pirate empire, to besiege and more importantly occupy numerous ports? Absolutely not. Pirates were ill-fitted to take on the National navies, and direct conflict was nit in the pirate's playbook. I have said it many times and will continue to say it: pirates should not be concerned with "conquering" a map. We should have our own, unique (and probably separate) victory mode: An Approach to Piracy
  31. 2 points
    I think many people will support this and I will too. Open ports to other nations, set up governors (players) and let them decide what to do, control traffic in and out of ports. Governors should be able to set up tax for each nation, close or open doors and use national tensions as a guide, but not as forced action that prohibits and closes all ports for all other nations. Historically Port Royal governor would allow 'Privateers' (aka Pirates) trade and operate in British port. What about pirates? Developers let's make it more interesting and introduce a package for PIrates that will let them become legal mercenaries for Nationals. Once package purchased they will become Privateers, but always can go back to Pirates and repeat. Package cost should be limited to Game Store Only. Feel free to share ideas. This suggestion touches Open Ports, Governors, Pirates and Mercenary topics.
  32. 2 points
    I agree that the root question is somewhat misguided. It almost never happened in reality, and when it did, it was probably down to factors that would be impossible to capture in a game (complex issues of human psychology and morale that lead to opponents surrending despite an advantage in terms of actual combat power), extreme incompetence on the part of the defeated (which is certainly possible in the game currently), or the luck factor (e.g. the lucky cannonball that brings down the mast of one ship, totally crippling her, and turns a 1 v 2 into a 1 v 1) that gamers - particularly competitive, online PvP gamers - cannot tolerate.
  33. 2 points
    in a 1 vs 2 situation, with the ships being voulnerable 360° now, there is very little way to reduce incoming damage. Especially vs 2or more players there will allways be 1 of the 2 that has a decent angle towards you, so he can shoot you effectively. Even if you perfectly outplay one, still the other one will mess you up by just simple hull shooting. In the apocalypse days, before the last wipe, we once won a 4 vs 8 (all in santis) (i think it was 8, correct me if im wrong) That was due to the fact that the ships were basically invoulnerable from the front due to how sailmass and cannonballs interacted, due to the crazy power of boarding and due to some other little factors. In the current installment this isnt possible anymore since there is no "invoulnerable" side on the ships anymore and no quick equalizer like rageboarding. You could win a 1vs2 situation by having superior boardingmods aswell, but that has also changed. I like most of the parts of the current system, but winning a 1vs2 situation is basically impossible without implementing some massive quick equalizer, which imo shouldnt be there. (Or you make the game so complicated with to many options and influencing factors, that only the most skilled players with 4 hands and 4 feet could possibly get all the buttons right and any noob will just sail straight without maneuvering orreloading because the game does nothing by itself) EDIT: Magnum, if we had crewlives that actually matter, then ppl would start surrendering, but since atm the lives of men, sailors officers and your own dont matter at all, there is no surrendering at all.
  34. 2 points
    We used to have something like you're asking for. People were sailing around with 3 or 4 Santissimas in their fleets. It was completely ridiculous. Even with just Snows, it was still ridiculous. I could be assured that, as a solo player, I had to make sure I had two snows with me or else I'd be at a disadvantage at any rank up to nearly the top. People want higher level fleets because they make the game easier. You can take on bigger targets and multiple targets, and you can assure yourself a win against larger groups of AI. This isn't how a multi-player game is supposed to work. While I know STO, and SWTOR have gotten people used to the idea that they can have pets with them to help them out, this wasn't how Captains of the age fought in large part. You were either out there on your own, taking on all comers, or you were tasked to team up with other Captains to work together on a task. This isn't a single player game - there are other Captains out there that you can team up with if you want to take on larger prey. If you want to solo, then just like the majority of ships at the time, you are out there by yourself. AI Fleets for warships are a crutch. They're great for new people to assist them in getting their feet underneath them, but they're a mess at higher levels. The only repeated reason I keep hearing to keep them is so "I can take on AI fleets solo". They're easier, so people like them. They should perhaps be available up to Snow in the PvE server, but for the PvP server, I'm adamantly against expanding them beyond what this patch allows.
  35. 2 points
    autoskipper. Square rigger, imo, is the point where you should start to sail with manual sails.
  36. 2 points
    In PvP, 3v1 shouldn't turn into a 9v1 because of AI fleets. AI fleet should only turn 3v1 into 3v3 (that is AI fleets should only help solo player to attack or defend himself against 3 players/bots). When several players meet several players in a fight (such as in 2v3), their AI fleet should be disabled and stay out of the battle, in the OW. That way, (AI) Escorts would fulfill their very role : helping the very weak to attack or defend against a greater force, whatever he's a trader or a privateer. PS : Once again : No rank limit ; only AI Ship class limit (corvette or light frigate) and max ship number (3 maybe less).
  37. 2 points
    Voici, la qualité est plus appréciable, et on peut mieux voir le vaisseau derrière. Voici le plan de voilure. Et quelques illustrations d'Antoine Fremy de ce type e bâtiments tiré d'un livre que j'ai et qui n'existe plus...
  38. 2 points
    Here's the thing with retaining ranks between servers... Player joins PVE server plays a month gets to post captain.. decides he's going to give it a go on the pvp server.. oops he has no gold and a yacht, and his missions will be tossing frigates at him.. Get rid of sharing anything between the servers.
  39. 2 points
    I'm Dutch, the only time since testing since i have seen a pirate was near Conil. i have seen 80-90% of the map and as a Dutch guy i have to admit i hardly encounter any pirates. I think pirates should be classed the same as other nations as it currently is. Pirates should be able to live from raiding and capturing ships and selling those goods trough fishy smugglers. For all i care it does not matter what ships pirates sail as this is a game and not real life, but their expansionism should not soley come down onto the US as it currently basically is.
  40. 2 points
    I really love that you need to actually navigate in the OW, a "magic" gps would kill the whole feel of the game. I would like to see the ability to draw on your map, kinda like in Silent Hunter, just draw your projected heading and add like pushpins or notes of interesting spots you've found. Maybe adding you current compass as well, but that's really it. Also a nice antique looking map would be nice to see, instead of the ugly gray we have now, but that's not navigation aid, just fashion.
  41. 2 points
    Genie, it's not my goal to preach about making the Pirate faction being harder, but I do believe the faction should be different from the others. I want all you guys to have fun too. I know and like and respect many Pirate players. I want this game to succeed and that means making the best possible gameplay experience for all. In fact, if you read other posts I've made I actually suggest unique buffs to Pirate play, unique ships, customization, modules, etc, that nationals cannot have. As stated above there's just so many gameplay opportunities that can be unlocked by allowing Pirates to fill their historical role. It would help the economy, diplomacy, RvR strategy, and it would just feel so fresh coming from a game like this. We already have 7 factions...is it more important to have an 8th that's completely identical, or more important to have an 8th that's capable of filling a unique and fun role? Anyway, I hope what you say is correct about changes coming to Pirates, because I have not heard anything like that confirmed.
  42. 2 points
    Doesn't that, by definition, make pirates "easy mode"...?
  43. 2 points
    They said some time ago they consider introducing dedicated trader ranks. If so i would like them to tie in escorts (meaybe even of a higher class) to both trading rang and a trader ship.
  44. 2 points
    Change "contraband goods found on board" to "known smuggler"...
  45. 2 points
    Just remove ability to take command of captured AI SoLs (or as a matter of fact any AI ship) and you can have every amount of 1st rates you want back on the OS. Problem solved.
  46. 2 points
    I find this thread intriguing..... We 'the British' are being penalised for our numbers, we are being singled out for our organization, we are being criticised for taking ports that have no timer set? We cannot help our numbers, organising a guild into a fighting group is never easy yet some here find that a problem. Insulting Americans for wanting to join a British nation guild is also uncalled for in my opinion. You have Brits fighting in the TDA, are they any lesser an individual for it?. Also when the Danes organised themselves with a Blitzkrieg of Ports (prepatched British & Spanish ports) the Admins and Community praised them for their organisation. When the Brits do it it's called a foul, why so? Gentlemen, may I remind you all this is a game, the Americans chose to fight us having enjoyed weeks of a truce and cooperation in peace and harmony. I understand the reason why they started this war was the alleviate boredom because the Pirates offered no challenge ( I was told in person - to quote "the Pirates are a joke!"). Isn't it about time some here realised this is a game and not actual WAR! When the British, and I speak from actual experience, had all nations fighting them in early OW we just got on with it...(other nations reveled in it) yet now the tables are turned and some are feeling the pressure, cracks are showing. Just lets play the game, highlight what needs changing and make this game the best we can!
  47. 2 points
    i understand the frustration of the USN and its predicament in regards to numbers... It would seem the numbers in game are like the history of the time... I believe at its height in the napoleonic wars (including the war of 1812) the Royal Navy had over 500 ships and I believe around 200 of those were sols. Forgive me if the figures are incorrect. I think a large coalition of enemies would struggle to muster that many. I do feel though that although banter and role play news articles are well and good! I can't help but feel that there is a bitter undercurrent that we shouldn't let get out of control, it'll just spoil a good community and so close to EA.
  48. 2 points
    I'd like to have the opportunity of a small AI fleet whatever my rank. So, I'd like to have :- No rank limit. AI Ship class limit is enough. - Max AI ship : light frigate (or failing that, corvette). Btw, a trader should be able to have a decent AI escort. - Max ship number in a AI fleet : 2 or 3. Why not even 1 ? But I know that my voice might be less "vocal"...
  49. 2 points
    The devs at one time said they applied the 5000 times rule for every feature in game. Are you sure the "patroling" you imagine will be fun when you do it for the 5000th time? It's not that i want to eliminate longer travels or blockading or such, god forbid, being a naval game that's part and parcel of what we signed for, but we already have that with at the moment with teleporting and we even had a lot of that with insta teleports. On the other hand, three hours of daily "patroling", mostly without catching an enemy at all or at most squashing some small groups with 50 people just because the clan's territory had to be "patrolled" killed all the fun for me in EVE in like 2007 and made me take a break of the game for more then three years.
  50. 2 points
    Considering the derogatory and inflammatory manner in which some of the PvP fanatics have posted, I will not refrain from putting this more bluntly. Reading the moaning about a PvE server and the nonsensical reasoning reminds me of an attempt to achieve the old adage 'the squeaky wheel gets the oil'. Claiming a waste of resources on PvE is ignorance. As one can learn from any number of MP and MMO games, a PvP focus will only serve to improve the combat and little else while bringing out the dark side of humanity as can easily be attested in Rust. Adding a PvE focus is that which will drive the developers to build up a solid and deep backing of the PvP element through a robust economy as PvE focused players demand it. Missions and larger scale battles with quality AI are additional benefits you will gain from a PvE player-base that is numerous, despite claims to the contrary. There is currently no game like NA that can be easily compared in all facets, it is simply too comprehensive in it's coverage and depth of simulation of the age of sail without having too high of a learning curve. I'm sure I am not the only one sitting here shaking my head at the boasts from both camps about all this MMO experience so we should listen to them, but the quality of the arguments and lack of proper grammar suggest they are probably coming from kids who wouldn't even know what a C64 is let alone have even played the original Pirates! game on it (or Skate or Die, or Conan, or any of the other greats). (See what I did there?) My only request of the PvE server is that they add the option for enabling an 'opt-in PvP' flag for those of us who enjoy a good hunting and battle session but also like some chill time as well without a need to log into multiple servers.
×
×
  • Create New...